autox
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Potential new helmet rule would affect autocrossers

To: "Pat Kelly" <lollipop487@comcast.net>, "Chuck"
Subject: Re: Potential new helmet rule would affect autocrossers
From: "Rocky Entriken" <rocky@tri.net>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 19:19:37 -0600
That's easy to toss off for a chuckle, and Pat did have the smiley on her 
quip, but on the serious side let me point out this:

The Secret CCA of not all that long ago (pre-Johnson) would have presented 
this to the membership as a done deal. This is your new rule, do it.

THIS iteration of SCCA told us out front they were considering something. 
They gave us the advisory, fair warning if you will. They gave us the 
opportunity to digest it, discuss it, object to it, trash it, and speak up 
about it. This SCCA is more about communicating with the membership and you 
have just seen an example of that. Nothing says you are going to like what 
you hear every time, but it's good to hear it before it is a done deal.

Use this communication to your best benefit. It is a two-way street. If you 
have thoughts on the issue, communicate them -- not just with each other on 
this list but also to those who make the decision. SEB. Tasha. Your 
director.

--Rocky Entriken

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Pat Kelly" <lollipop487@comcast.net>
To: "Chuck" <golden1@britsys.net>; "Rocky Entriken" <rocky@tri.net>; "Mark 
Sirota" <mark@sirota.org>; "Mark Andy" <mark@sccaprepared.com>; "autox 
mailing list" <autox@Autox.Team.Net>
Sent: Thursday, November 18, 2004 6:09 PM
Subject: Re: Potential new helmet rule would affect autocrossers


> Secret Sports Car Club of America? :)
> --Pat Kelly
> ----------
>>From: "Chuck" <golden1@britsys.net>
>>To: "Rocky Entriken" <rocky@tri.net>, "Mark Sirota" <mark@sirota.org>, 
>>"Mark
> Andy" <mark@sccaprepared.com>, "Evolution Discussion"
> <evolution-discussions@egroups.com>, "autox  mailing list"
> <autox@Autox.Team.Net>
>>Subject: Re: Potential new helmet rule would affect autocrossers
>>Date: Thu, Nov 18, 2004, 4:07 PM
>>
>
>> Why then if this is such a rush safety issue would the relegate the 
>> advisory
>> to such an inconspicuous location after such a short time???






<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>